The Complainant is an electronics manufacturer producing ONEPLUS smartphones.<\/p>\n
In December 2014, alongside the release of the OnePlus One in India exclusively through Amazon, the Complainant<\/span> also announced plans to establish a presence in India. <\/p>\n The Complainant owns several ONEPLUS trademarks in various jurisdictions, among which, the Indian trademarks “ONEPLUS”, no. 4333746, registered on 30 October 2019, for goods and services in classes 09, 35 and 42 and “+1 ONE PLUS”, no. 4333748, registered on 30 October 2019, for goods and services in classes 09, 35 and 42.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name <0neplus.net> was registered on 31 January 2023 and resolved to an active website at the date of filing of the Complaint.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>\n COMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS: <\/p>\n The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <0neplus.net<\/span>> is confusingly similar<\/span> to its trademark ONEPLUS trademark<\/span>, as t<\/span>he only change as towards its ONEPLUS trademarks is <\/span>the replacement of the <\/span>letter \"O\" in the trademark with the numeral zero (or \"0\") in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant contents that the<\/span> disputed domain name incorporates the whole of the ONEPLUS trademarks<\/span> and <\/span>that the addition of the generic Top Level Domain \".net\" (gTLD) does not alter or diminish in any way the confusing similarity between the Complainant's ONEPLUS trademarks<\/span> and the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n Further, the Complainant sustains that the <\/span>Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed <\/span>domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n In this sense, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent impersonating the Complainant's official webpage means that such was aware of the brand ONEPLUS, the registered trademarks and the business owned by the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that such has not authorized the Respondent to use the ONEPLUS trademark in anyway online or offline in India or anywhere else. <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant further alleges that such could not find any evidence that the Respondent has owned or registered any trademark of “0NEPLUS” or “ONEPLUS” and that by Google searching, there is no result connecting “0NEPLUS” or “ONEPLUS” to the Respondent. The Complainant contends that its trademark as well as the business are well-known in India and worldwide. Further, the Complainant alleges that the trademarks ONEPLUS were registered in 2013, long time before the domain name registration in 2023. <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that such owns and runs the official website https:\/\/www.oneplus.com\/ and https:\/\/www.oneplus.in\/ for its business since 2013 and that “Oneplus” smartphone is on the top selling list in Europe as well as in India for many years in a row. <\/span><\/p>\n In the Complainant’s view, it is difficult to believe that the Respondent chose the disputed domain name randomly without any knowledge of the \"Oneplus\" brand and intentionally designed a website that closely resembles the original Oneplus.in site.<\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, the Complainant contends that such could not find any connection between SANI ALAM (the Respondent) and “0NEPLUS” or “ONEPLUS” through Google search which is the top one used searching engine in India. <\/span><\/p>\n Further, the Complainant sustains that the disputed <\/span>domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/span> In the Complainant’s view, it is difficult to believe that the Respondent chose the disputed domain name randomly without any knowledge of the \"Oneplus\" brand and intentionally designed a website that closely resembles the original Oneplus.in site. <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant further asserts that previous use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent to redirect the Internet users to the impersonating website is generally considered by the UDRP Panels as an evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith behavior which aimed to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, as well as diluting and tarnishing the Complainant’s trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant contends that on the website available under the disputed domain name the Respondent also made use of the copyrighted imagery of Complainant’s official website at <oneplus.in> and thus breached Complainant’s copyright in these images. <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant further asserts that it has found, in the same month of the dispute domain name, that there was another domain name <0nplus.in> (same using number zero instead of letter O) registered and redirected to a similar impersonating webpage. In the Complainant’s belief, there is a connection between these two dispute domain names.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that such has have sent a few notice e-mails through the registrar and the web hosting provider WIX.com to contact the registrant, but there was no response received. <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the website corresponding to the disputed domain name is not a none-profit informative website and that it is preventing the Complainant to represent its business online in India as well as misleading the web visitors into believing the website corresponding to the disputed domain name is in a way related to the Complainant violating thus the web user´s rights.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Delia-Mihaela Belciu"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-06-18 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant bases his Complaint on the Indian trademarks “ONEPLUS”, no. 4333746, registered on 30 October 2019, for goods and services in classes 09, 35 and 42 and “+1 ONE PLUS”, no. 4333748, registered on 30 October 2019, for goods and services in classes 09, 35 and 42.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"0NEPLUS.NET": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
The Complainant contends that such could not find any fact to prove the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name as following:<\/span><\/p>\n\n
To this end, the Complainant contends that the webpage under the dispute domain name impersonated the original official website of the Complainant, and this use is a typical fraud.<\/span> <\/p>\n